alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 957 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 957

  Disapproving of President Obama and his administration's refusal to 
veto the anti-Israel resolution adopted by the United Nations Security 
                     Council on December 23, 2016.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 30, 2016

  Mr. Ross (for himself, Mr. Pittenger, Mr. Gohmert, Mrs. Black, Mrs. 
   Blackburn, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Rothfus, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. 
Pearce, Mr. Gowdy, Mr. Bishop of Michigan, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Stewart, Mr. 
Graves of Georgia, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Messer, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Jenkins 
 of West Virginia, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Kelly of Mississippi, and Mr. Brat) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                           on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Disapproving of President Obama and his administration's refusal to 
veto the anti-Israel resolution adopted by the United Nations Security 
                     Council on December 23, 2016.

Whereas the State of Israel has been a loyal friend and strong ally to the 
        United States since its establishment in 1948;
Whereas the United States Government has historically opposed and vetoed United 
        Nations Security Council resolutions that are one-sided and anti-Israel;
Whereas, on December 23, 2016, the United Nations Security Council adopted an 
        anti-Israel resolution that threatens peace in the Middle East and 
        breaks longstanding United States foreign policy; and
Whereas the United States Government, under the direction of President Barack 
        Obama, broke its longstanding commitment to the State of Israel, our 
        strongest ally in the Middle East, by refusing to veto this one-sided 
        and anti-Israel resolution: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) disapproves of United Nations Security Council 
        Resolution 2334 adopted on December 23, 2016;
            (2) disapproves of President Barack Obama and his 
        administration's failure to veto this one-sided and anti-Israel 
        resolution;
            (3) affirms the United States Government in the future must 
        continue to oppose and veto United Nations Security Council 
        resolutions that are one-sided and anti-Israel;
            (4) affirms its commitment to the State of Israel as our 
        loyal friend and strong ally in the Middle East; and
            (5) affirms its commitment to work with future Presidents 
        to strengthen our alliance with the State of Israel.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           8,798
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,199
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,748
<PP&E>                                          16,316
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,265
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,342
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           115
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,496
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,265
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,799
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,832
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 399
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,794)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        86
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,880)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,880)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.25)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0123

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOSE LUIS CHAVEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to 

produce transcripts on appeal, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Court Reporter Julie Delong is 

granted an extension of time to and including October 29, 2024, within 

which to prepare, file, and serve the transcripts requested on appeal. 

The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the district court 

and the court reporter.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 12 2024

09/12/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0123
#### David PEMBERTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DHL WORLDWIDE EXPRESS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-4330.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 5, 2005.

Barbara D. Bonar, Covington, KY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Linda L. Woeber, Montgomery, Rennie *&*Jonson, Cincinnati, OH, for DefendantAppellee.

Before: CLAY, GIBBONS, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this case, which alleges unlawful retaliation, plaintiff David Pemberton appeals an order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of his employer, defendant DHL Worldwide Ex*172press (“DHL”). Plaintiff alleged that defendant fired him in retaliation for relaying another employee’s sexual-harassment complaints and aiding her in her separate lawsuit against DHL. He sued DHL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, asserting a retaliation claim under Ohio Rev.Code. § 4112.02(1) and a common-law claim for retaliatory discharge in violation of Ohio public policy. DHL responded that it fired Pemberton for a pattern of poor performance, judgment, and attitude, culminating in his refusal to communicate with his supervisor during a prolonged unapproved absence.

In granting summary judgment in favor of defendant on both counts, the district court held that the only activity protected under Ohio Rev.Code. § 4112.02(1) was Pemberton’s deposition taken in the other employee’s case, and ruled that he could not establish a genuine issue as to whether that deposition motivated his termination. The district court also held that Pemberton could not establish that DHL’s legitimate reasons for firing him were a pretext for unlawful retaliation. Pemberton appeals.

Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having carefully reviewed the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm. Because the reasoning which supports the judgment has been well articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by this Court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the district court.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

    PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael W. Katz, certify that:

(1)  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of E Com Ventures, Inc.;

(2)  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
     statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
     make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
     statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
     this quarterly report; and

(3)  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
     material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
     flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
     quarterly report.

Date:  December 10, 2004

/s/ Michael W. Katz
-------------------------------------
Michael W. Katz
Chief Executive Officer and President

                                      -17-
Chapter 2.4.4. – Infection with Marteilia refringens

Annex 5. Item 6.2. – Usage of glossary definition:  ‘Aquatic Animal Products’

WOAH *Aquatic Manual* 2025	8
#### Bridget PARSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILMER HUTCHINS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-10389.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 18, 2005.

Bridget Parson, Cedar Hill, TX, pro se.

Eric V. Moye’, Dawn Kahle Doherty, Michael Wayne Massiatte, Vial, Hamilton, Koch *&*Knox, Dallas, TX, for DefendantAppellee.

Before JOLLY, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant challenges the dismissal of her suit as a sanction for her abusive litigation practice and refusal to comply with the court’s orders.

After the district court warned appellant numerous times to refrain from abusive litigation tactics and follow the court’s orders and plaintiff persisted in refusing to heed those warnings, the court dismissed plaintiffs suit. The multiple violations of the court’s orders and instances of appellant’s abusive litigation practice are recited in detail in its opinion and order of February 17, 2005, and fully support its dismissal of appellant’s suit.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
# C_2018072EN.01004702.xml

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/47

---

Action brought on 11 January 2018 — Zweirad-Center Stadler v EUIPO — Triumph Designs (Triumph)

(Case T-12/18)

(2018/C 072/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Zweirad-Center Stadler GmbH (Regensburg, Germany) (represented by: P. Ruess and A. Doepner-Thiele, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Triumph Designs Ltd (Swadlincote, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Triumph’ — Application for registration No 6 717 672

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 November 2017 in Case R 665/2017-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision to the extent that it refused the trade mark application for the goods in classes 9, 12 and 25; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision to the extent that it refused the trade mark application for the goods in classes 9, 12 and 25;

| — | reject the opposition in its entirety and allow the trade mark to be registered for those goods, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to EUIPO in order that it may adopt the consequent measures; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition in its entirety and allow the trade mark to be registered for those goods, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to EUIPO in order that it may adopt the consequent measures;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Item_5_1_9a_Camelpox/ page 1

Annex 28

The USA would like to commend WOAH for its essential work and thank the Code Commission for having taken into consideration USA comments on the Terrestrial Code submitted previously.

In addition, there is an additional comment provided in the text (Article X.Z.1.) below.

CHAPTER X.Z.INFECTION WITH CAMELPOX VIRUS

Article X.Z.1.

General provisions

For the purposes of the *Terrestrial Code*, *infection* with camelpox virus is defined as an *infection* of dromedary,~~and~~ bactrian camels and New World camelids (i.e., llamas & alpacas)  (hereafter ‘susceptible animals’) with camelpox virus of genus *Orthopoxvirus*, family *Poxviridae*. 

**Rationale:** For consistency with Chapter 3.5.1. of the Terrestrial Manual 2021.

The following defines the occurrence of *infection* with camelpox virus:

1)	camelpox virus has been isolated and identified as such in a sample from a susceptible animal; or 

2)	characteristic orthopox virions have been observed in a sample from a susceptible animal showing clinical signs suggestive of *infection* with camelpox virus or epidemiologically linked to a confirmed or suspected *case*; or 

3)	antigen or nucleic acid specific to camelpox virus has been detected in a sample from a susceptible animal showing clinical signs suggestive of *infection* with camelpox virus or epidemiologically linked to a confirmed or suspected *case*; or

4)	antibodies specific to camelpox virus, that are not the consequence of *vaccination*, have been detected in a sample from a susceptible animal showing clinical signs suggestive of *infection* with camelpox virus or epidemiologically linked to a confirmed or suspected *case*.

Standards for diagnostic tests and vaccines are described in the *Terrestrial Manual*. 

___________________________

*WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/September 2022*

Report of the Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission / September 2022	1
# C_2021462EN.01001001.xml

| 15.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — G. Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Bydgoszczy

(Case C-855/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 69 - Chargeability of VAT - Intra-Community acquisition of motor fuels - Obligation to make early payment of VAT - Article 206 - Concept of ‘interim payments’ - Article 273 - Correct collection of VAT and prevention of evasion - Discretion of the Member States)

(2021/C 462/08)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: G. Sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Bydgoszczy

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 69, 206 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which imposes an obligation to pay value added tax (VAT) on the intra-Community acquisition of motor fuels before that VAT becomes chargeable, within the meaning of Article 69 of Directive 2006/112.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.

---
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before KING, GASTON , and FOIL ,

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Timothy D. JOSHUA Aviation Boatswain’s Mate Fuel Handler Third Class (E

- 4 ), U.S. Navy Appellant
No. 201900222
Decided: 9 January 2020

. Appea l from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

. Military Judge : Captain Michael J. Luken, JAGC, USN. Sentence adjudged 22 April 2019 by a speci al court

- martial convened at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, consisting of a military judge sitting alone

. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : a bad

- conduct discharge

. For Appellant: Captain Jeremiah J. Sullivan III , JAGC, USN. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________ This opinion does not serve as bindin g precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________ PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fa ct and that no error materially prejudicial to the a ppellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59 and 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.United States v. Joshua , NMCCA No. 201 900222

2 T he findings and senten ce are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 9, 2010

p0830 

# Order

September 9, 2010

141011

SUMMIT POLYMERS INC.,Plaintiff/Counter-DefendantAppellant,

v SC: 141011 COA: 289596 Wayne CC: 05-503433-CK ATEK THERMOFORMING INC., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/ Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellee,

and

LEON PLASTICS, OWEN T. MAHER and VISTEON CORP., Third-Party-Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 23, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# C_2021138EN.01001401.xml

| 19.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/14

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 January 2021 — CCPL — Consorzio Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro SC, Coopbox group SpA, Coopbox Eastern s.r.o.v European Commission

(Case C-706/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Retail food packaging market - Appeal directed against the grounds - Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

(2021/C 138/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: CCPL — Consorzio Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro SC, Coopbox group SpA, Coopbox Eastern s.r.o. (represented initially by: S. Bariatti, E. Cucchiara and A. Cutrupi, avvocati, and subsequently by E. Cucchiara, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by: P. Rossi and T. Vecchi, and subsequently by P. Rossi, G. Conte and C. Sjödin, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | CCPL — Consorzio Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro SC, Coopbox group SpA and Coopbox Eastern s.r.o. are ordered to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

CCPL — Consorzio Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro SC, Coopbox group SpA and Coopbox Eastern s.r.o. are ordered to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

---
# C_2020390EN.01001301.xml

| 16.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 390/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 390/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 September 2020 — Romania v European Commission

(Case C-498/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Decision of the European Commission excluding expenditure from EU financing - Notification to the addressee - Error in the printing of the annex - Publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union - Time limit for filing appeal - Point from which time starts to run - Lateness - Principle of legal certainty - Observance of the adversarial principle)

(2020/C 390/17)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Romania (represented initially by C.-R Canţăr, E. Gane O.-C. Ichim and M. Chicu, subsequently by E. Gane, O.-C. Ichim and M. Chicu, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Romania to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Romania to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

---